But several national polls indicate that the majority of all people polled, not just the loud voices, do not like it. Also, because the fervor has quieted down doesn't mean people are suddenly liking it. They've just grown tired of voicing their opinion, which happens in almost every situation like this.
I just think it is very disingenuous to imply that it was a small minority complaining, when it is clear that the general reaction is negative.
Look at how the polls are administered and the sample sizes. Then think about who the websites attract. It's easy to say it just get, you know, everybody.
Polls that convey real information without interference (the phrasing of the questions, the alternatives, getting the data that is actually important for business reasons, asking the right mix of people to represent your target market, and more) is extremely difficult.
Again, there is a reason political campaigns play for scientific and professional polls and surveys rather than just checking out what CNN or Fox News says on the side of their page in the poll of the day.
This is not being disingenuous. This is understanding how data is gathered, processed, and analyzed.
The unscientific poll might be right, just like the person who always says "heads" might be right when I ask him what side landed face-up when I flipped a coin. That answer, even if right, contains no information. These polls are not nearly as extreme as that, but this is far from being clearly coupled to the signal.
Additionally, these things tend to be time-varying. People react poorly to many kinds of change at first, then the reaction subsides to a degree. The long-term effect is much more important for a rebrand. These polls, therefore, contain less of the actual relevant information than they do of the short term, more irrelevant information.